Alberts, B., Hanson, B. & Kelner, K. L. Editorial: reviewing peer review. Science 321, 15\u201315 (2008).<\/p>\n
Article<\/a>\u00a0 Kelly, J., Sadeghieh, T. & Adeli, K. Peer review in scientific publications: benefits, critiques, & a survival guide. EJIFCC 25, 227 (2014).<\/p>\n Publons Global State of Peer Review 2018 (Clarivate Analytics, 2018).<\/p>\n Azad, A. & Banu, A. Publication trends in artificial intelligence conferences: the rise of super prolific authors. Preprint at https:\/\/doi.org\/10.48550\/arXiv.2412.07793<\/a> (2024).<\/p>\n McCook, A. Is peer review broken? Submissions are up, reviewers are overtaxed, and authors are lodging complaint after complaint about the process at top-tier journals. What\u2019s wrong with peer review? The Scientist (1 February 2006).<\/p>\n Thakkar, N. et al. Assisting ICLR 2025 reviewers with feedback. Blog post by the ICLR 2025 Review Feedback Agent Team and Program Chairs. ICLR Blog https:\/\/blog.iclr.cc\/2024\/10\/09\/iclr2025-assisting-reviewers\/<\/a> (2024).<\/p>\n Rogers, A. & Augenstein, I. What can we do to improve peer review in NLP? In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020 (eds Cohn, T., He, Y. & Liu, Y.) 1256\u20131262 (ACL, 2020).<\/p>\n Rogers, A., Karpinska, M., Boyd-Graber, J. & Okazaki, N. Program chairs\u2019 report on peer review at acl 2023. In Proc. 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics Vol. 1, xl\u2013lxxv (ACL, 2023).<\/p>\n Arns, M. Open access is tiring out peer reviewers. Nature 515, 467 (2014).<\/p>\n Article<\/a>\u00a0 Cortes, C. & Lawrence, N. D. Inconsistency in conference peer review: revisiting the 2014 NeurIPS experiment. Preprint at https:\/\/doi.org\/10.48550\/arXiv.2109.09774<\/a> (2021).<\/p>\n Claude 3.5 Sonnet (Anthropic, 2024).<\/p>\n Liang, W. et al. Can large language models provide useful feedback on research papers? a large-scale empirical analysis. NEJM AI 1, AIoa2400196 (2024).<\/p>\n Article<\/a>\u00a0 Yuksekgonul, M. et al. Optimizing generative AI by backpropagating language model feedback. Nature 639, 609\u2013616 (2025).<\/p>\n Article<\/a>\u00a0 Madaan, A. et al. Self-refi ne: iterative refi nement with self-feedback. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 36, 46534\u201346594 (2023).<\/p>\n Hosseini, M. & Horbach, S. P. J. M. Fighting reviewer fatigue or amplifying bias? Considerations and recommendations for use of GhatGPT and other large language models in scholarly peer review. Res. Integr. Peer Rev. 8, 4 (2023).<\/p>\n Liang, W. et al. Monitoring AI-modified content at scale: a case study on the impact of ChatGPT on AI conference peer reviews. In Proc. 41st International Conference on Machine Learning 29575\u201329620 (ICML, 2024).<\/p>\n Zhang, Y. et al. Siren\u2019s song in the AI ocean: a survey on hallucination in large language models. Computational Linguistics 51, 1373\u20131418 (2025).<\/p>\n Article<\/a>\u00a0 Zhou, J. et al. Instruction-following evaluation for large language models. Preprint at https:\/\/doi.org\/10.48550\/arXiv.2311.07911<\/a> (2023).<\/p>\n Liu, R. & Shah, N. B. ReviewerGPT? an exploratory study on using large language models for paper reviewing. Preprint at https:\/\/doi.org\/10.48550\/arXiv.2306.00622<\/a> (2023).<\/p>\n Biswas, S., Dobaria, D. & Cohen, H. L. ChatGPTand the future of journal reviews: a feasibility study. Yale J. Biol. Med. 96, 415\u2013420 (2023).<\/p>\n Article<\/a>\u00a0 Liang, W. et al. Mapping the increasing use of LLMs in scientific papers. In Proc. 1st Conference on Language Modeling (COLM) (2024).<\/p>\n Shah, N. B. Challenges, experiments, and computational solutions in peer review. Commun. ACM 65, 76\u201387 (2022).<\/p>\n Article<\/a>\u00a0 Price, S. & Flach, P. A. Computational support for academic peer review: a perspective from artificial intelligence. Commun. ACM 60, 70\u201379 (2017).<\/p>\n Article<\/a>\u00a0 Kankanhalli, A. Peer review in the age of generative AI. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 25, 76\u201384 (2024).<\/p>\n Kuznetsov, I. et al. What can natural language processing do for peer review? Preprint at https:\/\/doi.org\/10.48550\/arXiv.2405.06563<\/a> (2024).<\/p>\n Leung, T. I., Taiane de Azevedo, C., Mavragani, A. & Eysenbach, G. Best practices for using AI tools as an author, peer reviewer, or editor. J. Med. Internet Res. 25, e51584 (2023).<\/p>\n Article<\/a>\u00a0 Checco, A., Bracciale, L., Loreti, P., Pinfield, S. & Bianchi, G. AI-assisted peer review. Humanit. Soc. Sci. Commun. 8, 25 (2021).<\/p>\n Article<\/a>\u00a0 Kousha, K. & Thelwall, M. Artificial intelligence to support publishing and peer review: a summary and review. Learn. Publ. 37, 4\u201312 (2024).<\/p>\n Article<\/a>\u00a0 Goldberg, A. et al. Usefulness of LLMs as an author checklist assistant for scientific papers: NeurIPS\u201924 experiment. Preprint at https:\/\/doi.org\/10.48550\/arXiv.2411.03417<\/a> (2024).<\/p>\n Su, X., Wambsganss, T., Rietsche, R., Neshaei, S. P. & K\u00e4ser, T. Reviewriter: AI-generated instructions for peer review writing. In Proc. 18th Workshop on Innovative Use of NLP for Building Educational Applications (eds Kochmar, E. et al.) 57\u201371 (ACL, 2023).<\/p>\n D\u2019Arcy, M., Hope, T., Birnbaum, L. & Downey, D. MARG: multi-agent review generation for scientific papers. Preprint at https:\/\/doi.org\/10.48550\/arXiv.2401.04259<\/a> (2024).<\/p>\n GPT-4 Technical Report (OpenAI, 2024).<\/p>\n Goldberg, A. et al. Peer reviews of peer reviews: a randomized controlled trial and other experiments. PLoS ONE 20, e0320444 (2025).<\/p>\n Article<\/a>\u00a0 Kocak, B., Onur, M. R., Park, S. H., Baltzer, P. & Dietzel, M. Ensuring peer review integrity in the era of large language models: a critical stocktaking of challenges, red flags, and recommendations. Eur. J. Radiol. Artif. Intell. 2, 100018 (2025).<\/p>\n Article<\/a>\u00a0 Ye, R. et al. Are we there yet? Revealing the risks of utilizing large language models in scholarly peer review. Preprint at https:\/\/doi.org\/10.48550\/arXiv.2412.01708<\/a> (2024).<\/p>\n Shin, H. et al. Mind the blind spots: a focus-level evaluation framework for LLM reviews. In Proc. Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing 35630\u201335656 (EMNLP, 2025).<\/p>\n Luo, M. et al. Benchmark on peer review toxic detection: a challenging task with a new dataset. Preprint at https:\/\/doi.org\/10.48550\/arXiv.2502.01676<\/a> (2025).<\/p>\n Tamkin, A. et al. Clio: privacy-preserving insights into real-world AI use. Preprint at https:\/\/doi.org\/10.48550\/arXiv.2412.13678<\/a> (2024).<\/p>\n Saad-Falcon, J. et al. LMUnit: fine-grained evaluation with natural language unit tests. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics 3303\u20133324 (ACL, 2025).<\/p>\n Prasad, A., Stengel-Eskin, E., Chen, J. C.-Y., Khan, Z. & Bansal, M. Learning to generate unit tests for automated debugging. Preprint at https:\/\/doi.org\/10.48550\/arXiv.2502.01619<\/a> (2025).<\/p>\n Charlin, L., Zemel, R. S. & Boutilier, C. A framework for optimizing paper matching. In Proc. 27th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence 11, 86\u201395 (AUAI Press, 2011).<\/p>\n ICML 2023 Reviewer Tutorial (ICML 2023 Program Committee, 2023).<\/p>\n How to Be a Good Reviewer? Reviewer Tutorial for ICML 2022 (ICML 2022 Program Chairs, 2022).<\/p>\n Last Minute Reviewing Advice (ACL PC Chairs, 2017).<\/p>\n Valdenegro, M. LXCV @ CVPR 2021 Reviewer Mentoring Program: and How to Write Good Reviews. Presentation at LatinX in Computer Vision (LXCV) Workshop, CVPR 2021 (2021).<\/p>\n Rogers, A. ARR Reviewer Guidelines (Association for Computational Linguistics, 2021).<\/p>\n Silbiger, N. J. & Stubler, A. D. Unprofessional peer reviews disproportionately harm underrepresented groups in stem. PeerJ 7, e8247 (2019).<\/p>\n Article<\/a>\u00a0 Fenniak, M. et al. The PyPDF library. https:\/\/pypi.org\/project\/pypdf\/<\/a> (2024).<\/p>\n Ribeiro, M. T. & Lundberg, S. Testing Language Models (and Prompts) Like We Test Software (Medium, 2023).<\/p>\n
\n
\n Google Scholar<\/a>\u00a0\n <\/p>\n
\n Google Scholar<\/a>\u00a0\n <\/p>\n
\n
\n Google Scholar<\/a>\u00a0\n <\/p>\n
\n
\n Google Scholar<\/a>\u00a0\n <\/p>\n
\n
\n Google Scholar<\/a>\u00a0\n <\/p>\n
\n Google Scholar<\/a>\u00a0\n <\/p>\n
\n
\n Google Scholar<\/a>\u00a0\n <\/p>\n
\n
\n Google Scholar<\/a>\u00a0\n <\/p>\n
\n
\n Google Scholar<\/a>\u00a0\n <\/p>\n
\n
\n Google Scholar<\/a>\u00a0\n <\/p>\n
\n
\n Google Scholar<\/a>\u00a0\n <\/p>\n
\n
\n Google Scholar<\/a>\u00a0\n <\/p>\n
\n
\n Google Scholar<\/a>\u00a0\n <\/p>\n
\n
\n Google Scholar<\/a>\u00a0\n <\/p>\n
\n
\n Google Scholar<\/a>\u00a0\n <\/p>\n
\n
\n Google Scholar<\/a>\u00a0\n <\/p>\n